How does the world-wide flood fit with the crucifixion story?

[Chris72]

If it’s your contention that the crucifixion was performed in order to absolve this world of original sin, then what was the world-wide flood for? If you believe there was a world-wide flood done to rid the world of evil and start everyone off with a clean slate, why not just come down and get crucified at that time instead?

 

[drich0150]

If it’s your contention that the crucifixion was performed in order to absolve this world of original sin, then what was the world-wide flood for? If you believe there was a world-wide flood done to rid the world of evil and start everyone off with a clean slate, why not just come down and get crucified at that time instead?

Because not all that died in the flood would find absolution through the sacrifice on the cross.

 

[Chris72]

Because not all that died in the flood would find absolution through the sacrifice on the cross.

How's that? Explain to me how they could have 2000 years ago, but not in flood times. What was the difference?

 

[CryptoLutheran]

If it’s your contention that the crucifixion was performed in order to absolve this world of original sin, then what was the world-wide flood for? If you believe there was a world-wide flood done to rid the world of evil and start everyone off with a clean slate, why not just come down and get crucified at that time instead?

It's worth stating that I don't take the flood narrative as literal history, though I do think there was probably a local flood in the ancient near east that was likely the historical basis for numerous flood stories, including the Biblical narrative.

With that out of the way I think the flood story asks and answers an important question: If things are so terrible, why doesn't God just wipe everyone out and start over? That's exactly what happens in the flood story. God spares Noah and his family due to their righteousness in order to reboot mankind. What happens? People still screw up, immediately after Noah builds an altar to thank God for sparing him and his family and for bringing dry ground again he immediately gets drunk, one of his sons enters and sees Noah naked and Noah in a fit curses his son. Following this man does basically what happened in the first place: Desiring to be like God/like gods they try and build a tower. By Abraham people are worshiping idols and Abraham is called out from Ur to start something new, the actual way God is going to fix the world.

The flood tells us that it wouldn't matter if God wiped us out and tried to start over, we'd still most likely screw up. The real answer, and God's plan, begins with Abraham and the child of promise, Isaac who fathered Jacob who fathered the twelve tribes of Israel to whom God gave His Torah to be a people as a light among the nations. Christians see in this further God's promise of Jesus who is the climax and summation of this redemptive project of God's which began with Abraham.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[drich0150]

How's that? Explain to me how they could have 2000 years ago, but not in flood times. What was the difference?

Not all that lived and sinned on the earth was 100% man. The forgiveness offered by God was offered to the offspring of Adam and Eve.

1 When man began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for they are mortal[b]; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. (Some translations identifies them as a race of titans.) 5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

 

[Chris72]

It's worth stating that I don't take the flood narrative as literal history, though I do think there was probably a local flood in the ancient near east that was likely the historical basis for numerous flood stories, including the Biblical narrative.

With that out of the way I think the flood story asks and answers an important question: If things are so terrible, why doesn't God just wipe everyone out and start over? That's exactly what happens in the flood story. God spares Noah and his family due to their righteousness in order to reboot mankind. What happens? People still screw up, immediately after Noah builds an altar to thank God for sparing him and his family and for bringing dry ground again he immediately gets drunk, one of his sons enters and sees Noah naked and Noah in a fit curses his son. Following this man does basically what happened in the first place: Desiring to be like God/like gods they try and build a tower. By Abraham people are worshiping idols and Abraham is called out from Ur to start something new, the actual way God is going to fix the world.

The flood tells us that it wouldn't matter if God wiped us out and tried to start over, we'd still most likely screw up. The real answer, and God's plan, begins with Abraham and the child of promise, Isaac who fathered Jacob who fathered the twelve tribes of Israel to whom God gave His Torah to be a people as a light among the nations. Christians see in this further God's promise of Jesus who is the climax and summation of this redemptive project of God's which began with Abraham.

-CryptoLutheran

So, then the god in the story fails. It's that simple. Why would his "plan" not begin sooner than Abraham? My contention is that the Israelites were the "chosen people" because these were their scriptures. Much like the ancient greeks considered themselves special in the eyes of the gods of olympus, or the Mayans felt themselves special in the eyes of their gods. In any cultural superstitions, the culture which spawns the tales are at the center of the tales.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

So, then the god in the story fails. It's that simple.

If that's the way you want to look at it. That's not the way I look at it, I see the story as a teaching device, not an historical tale.

Why would his "plan" not begin sooner than Abraham?

It did. The point I was making is that with Abraham the biblical redemptive narrative takes some focus and more-or-less kicks off.

My contention is that the Israelites were the "chosen people" because these were their scriptures. Much like the ancient greeks considered themselves special in the eyes of the gods of olympus, or the Mayans felt themselves special in the eyes of their gods. In any cultural superstitions, the culture which spawns the tales are at the center of the tales.

I think that's a given. Where it becomes an issue of faith is whether or not any such tales/texts/myths/histories/etc are true. As a Christian I accept that God did call Abraham out from Ur, that He did call a people to be His people and gave them His Torah and that from these people Jesus was born, He was the Messiah, and that He died and rose from the dead and that His gathered community, the Church, is to be active in continuing Jesus' kingdom ministry in the world until the Parousia.

That, of course, is because of my faith as a Christian.

If my faith were in the Olympian gods I'd think differently. If I didn't have any faith at all then I wouldn't see any valuable difference between Moses or Hesiod. But since I am a Christian, I do.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Chris72]

If that's the way you want to look at it. That's not the way I look at it, I see the story as a teaching device, not an historical tale.

In the story, he tries to rid the world of evil but doesnt. It is a failure.

It did. The point I was making is that with Abraham the biblical redemptive narrative takes some focus and more-or-less kicks off.

And my point was how does this fit with the crucifixion story. Why two different methods of world-wide redemption? Did the crucifixion approach fail too?

I think that's a given. Where it becomes an issue of faith is whether or not any such tales/texts/myths/histories/etc are true. As a Christian I accept that God did call Abraham out from Ur, that He did call a people to be His people and gave them His Torah and that from these people Jesus was born, He was the Messiah, and that He died and rose from the dead and that His gathered community, the Church, is to be active in continuing Jesus' kingdom ministry in the world until the Parousia.

That, of course, is because of my faith as a Christian.

If my faith were in the Olympian gods I'd think differently. If I didn't have any faith at all then I wouldn't see any valuable difference between Moses or Hesiod. But since I am a Christian, I do.

-CryptoLutheran

So again, my point of how these beliefs are culturally based. Wouldnt you think if your god exists in the manner you believe he does, that the belief in him would be universal? Or at least spread homogenously across places and times?

 

[razeontherock]

In the story, he tries to rid the world of evil but doesnt. It is a failure.

IOW, you're still missing the point of the story. It's really not that hard. Have you noticed a pattern in your posts and threads, that you start out asking a question, but quickly reject every answer with a rebuttal? Do you consider that means your questions are sincere?

And my point was how does this fit with the crucifixion story. Why two different methods of world-wide redemption? Did the crucifixion approach fail too?

1) You have mis-stated the purpose of the Gospel.

2) Crypto Lutheran has taken the time to give you an excellent answer, in his very first post IIRC. So much so I couldn't attempt to improve upon it; and that's saying quite something because this is not an easy question. He has been on a roll lately ...

So again, my point of how these beliefs are culturally based. Wouldnt you think if your god exists in the manner you believe he does, that the belief in him would be universal? Or at least spread homogenously across places and times?

Not at all. Any examination into human nature shows otherwise. what you need to do, is consider how remarkable it is that anybody heard from God, ever, anywhere. And then develop some tolerance for those elements that are not Divine being mingled in. The real meaning is always below the surface anyway.

 

[Chris72]

IOW, you're still missing the point of the story. It's really not that hard. Have you noticed a pattern in your posts and threads, that you start out asking a question, but quickly reject every answer with a rebuttal? Do you consider that means your questions are sincere?

I understand the point of the story and I was pointing out that the point makes no sense, at least not in terms of a god who is supposed to be omnipotent or omniscient.

I rebut answers, yes. That is how a debate works. When I reject an answer I point out why. That is how logical thinking works other than just dogma. Yes my questions are sincere, are your answers?

1) You have mis-stated the purpose of the Gospel.

2) Crypto Lutheran has taken the time to give you an excellent answer, in his very first post IIRC. So much so I couldn't attempt to improve upon it; and that's saying quite something because this is not an easy question. He has been on a roll lately ...

1) the purpose of the gospel is that supposedly our sins were atoned for through jesus's death on the cross. And my point was why was this not settled during the great flood? It makes perfect sense when you realize that what you are reading is a collection of mythology of an ancient people. The tales arent going to always make sense when fit together in one giant book. But it makes NO sense if you look at this as some sort of true story.

2) His answer didnt really answer the question at all. It seems you think that were it not for the flood we would all be sitting around hoping for a world-wide disaster of a flood. But since we have seen that it doesnt work, we dont wish for it? Is that what you are getting at? Otherwise why would you make the comment "The flood tells us that it wouldn't matter if God wiped us out and tried to start over, we'd still most likely screw up"?

See it really doesnt make sense at all. The flood is an allegorical tale, absolutely, although I dont agree the lesson learned is a good one. I think it was a tale to keep primitive people in line with their beliefs. "You dont want to believe in god? Well he once wiped us all out so you better watch it!" Of course, this would be passed down through different cultures and modified. then when you have a new theology come along, with a crucifixion story that supposedly absolves us of sin, a story people really get behind because, hey this means we got a path to eternal bliss now, you have to find a way to meld it together with the old beliefs. But there really isnt a way to make it work, so you just kind of dodge the question.

Not at all. Any examination into human nature shows otherwise. what you need to do, is consider how remarkable it is that anybody heard from God, ever, anywhere. And then develop some tolerance for those elements that are not Divine being mingled in. The real meaning is always below the surface anyway.

No, it's no more remarkable than anybody claiming to hear from any gods. Again, they are cultural superstitions. If a god existed, I see no reason why he would stay hidden from his creation.

I'm trying to wrap things up one thread at a time because it's getting late. So it's my last post on this thread for the night. Possibly for the weekend because I have stuff to do and a hurricane coming (and dont get me started on how natural disasters NOWADAYS just randomly come without any "warnings" or explanations, unlike in biblical times...) But if your response to my last paragraph is going to be some variation of "god doesnt reveal himself to us so we can have faith" please realize my response will be 1. that makes no sense, and 2. please read the first commandment and tell me how that fits with your explanation.

 

[razeontherock]

I understand the point of the story

No, you don't. Really. You prove that quite thoroughly. Asking questions would normally be a way of improving that understanding, not asserting the lack thereof as you're doing.

1) the purpose of the gospel is that supposedly our sins were atoned for

Nope. You don't understand this event either. Why would you count yourself as part of the forgiven?

It makes perfect sense when you realize that what you are reading is a collection of mythology of an ancient people. The tales arent going to always make sense when fit together in one giant book.

You haven't considered the enormous time span over which this was written, and the vast number of different authors. This concludes that it should make NO sense as one giant book. And yet it does, although the OT is quite veiled.

If a god existed, I see no reason why he would stay hidden from his creation.

Thank you for your honesty. Now if you add some humility to that, you will recognize that others DO see some reason for it, although maybe no one really sees the entire reason clearly. For you to dismiss all that and declare there is NO reason, is ... well I'll let you pick the appropriate descriptor that is the opposite of humility.

 

[Emmy]

Dear Chris72. You had a number of different replies, may I join? Firstly it shows to me, how easy it would be for God to destroy the bad ones. And it proves again how God loves us and wants us to be with Him. All through the Old-Testament we can see the depths to which Mankind can sink, and again and again they were punished, but sadly it made little difference. The Crucifixion was God`s final way to save us, He send His Son, part of His Spirit, brought forth by Mary a chosen Virgin, to save Mankind. Jesus suffered and died for us, that we might live and "Repent," Jesus showed us what Love really is, and Jesus paid the prize which God`s eternal Law demanded, Love for God with His Body and Blood, and Love for Mankind that we might have another chance to become God`s loving children/sons and daughters. When God raised Jesus, the Prize was paid, and all who want to come, may come. I say this with love, Chris. Greetings from Emmy, sister in Christ. P.S. The Bible-God`s Word to Man, will explain all in detail.

 

[razeontherock]

Emmy hit the nail on the head! The NT brings this fact into focus, that w/o repentance
G-d's intervention never accomplishes His will for mankind. So really, we might as well just get on with it, and that's where He meets us.

 

[Eric Hilbert]

In the story, he tries to rid the world of evil but doesnt. It is a failure.

Where does the text ever say that God tried to rid the world of evil???

And my point was how does this fit with the crucifixion story. Why two different methods of world-wide redemption? Did the crucifixion approach fail too?

Neither had anything to do with "worldwide redemption". What you're suggesting is called "Universalism" and is condemned as heresy within Christianity.

So again, my point of how these beliefs are culturally based. Wouldnt you think if your god exists in the manner you believe he does, that the belief in him would be universal?

I believe it is. All men have an inate knowledge that there is a God and that they have violated His laws.

 

[Chris72]

Dear Chris72. You had a number of different replies, may I join?

Of course.

Firstly it shows to me, how easy it would be for God to destroy the bad ones. And it proves again how God loves us and wants us to be with Him.

I find that to be a rather interesting take on the story. As far as the "easy" part goes, waiting a hundred years while a man builds a boat (meanwhile all the "bad" people are born live full lives and die peaceful deaths), then having to re-populate the earth afterwards, presumably without anybody or any animal eating anything for several generations, seems like the abnormally difficult way to do it. Especially when, if he were truly omnipotent, he could have just snapped his fingers and made everyone drop dead. Or just made them good. All the more reason to think it's just a legend from an ancient people

All through the Old-Testament we can see the depths to which Mankind can sink, and again and again they were punished, but sadly it made little difference.

And that's exactly how a cult hooks you in: take away your self-esteem, make you feel like you are worthless, then tell you "stick with us and you'll get forgiven when you die". The only difference between religion and a cult is scale.

The reality is mankind doesn't sink to any depths. Sometimes people are good, sometimes bad, overall we do okay.

The Crucifixion was God`s final way to save us, He send His Son, part of His Spirit, brought forth by Mary a chosen Virgin, to save Mankind. Jesus suffered and died for us, that we might live and "Repent," Jesus showed us what Love really is, and Jesus paid the prize which God`s eternal Law demanded, Love for God with His Body and Blood, and Love for Mankind that we might have another chance to become God`s loving children/sons and daughters. When God raised Jesus, the Prize was paid, and all who want to come, may come. I say this with love, Chris. Greetings from Emmy, sister in Christ. P.S. The Bible-God`s Word to Man, will explain all in detail.

And again, explain to me how that fits with the great flood story. If he were omniscient surely he would know the "flood" approach would fail. Why not just do the crucifixion at that time instead? It only makes sense if you look at the bible as a collection of legends put together, not as a historical account.

 

[Eric Hilbert]

And that's exactly how a cult hooks you in: take away your self-esteem, make you feel like you are worthless, then tell you "stick with us and you'll get forgiven when you die". The only difference between religion and a cult is scale.

Christianity never says we're worthless. To the contrary, it says that we're made in the image of God.

And again, explain to me how that fits with the great flood story. If he were omniscient surely he would know the "flood" approach would fail.

How did it "fail"?

 

[Chris72]

I believe it is. All men have an inate knowledge that there is a God and that they have violated His laws.

I disagree completely with the first part dealing with an innate knowledge. Stories of gods are passed on to you during childhood, you are not born with any such beliefs.

The second part I disagree even more with. I dont believe any such innate belief exists in the least bit. If you want to keep telling yourself that, have at it.

But it is beside the point. You seem to have missed what I was saying with regards to the heterogeneous distribution of god beliefs along cultural lines. If you had been raised in athens 2500 years ago you would have believed in a different set of gods, similarly if you lived in India in the year 300, in central america in the 1300s, in Egypt 3000 years ago, in canada in the 1600s, etc etc etc etc.

Or even modern day, if you lived in kandahar, or a remote village in the congo, or in some regions of India, your beliefs in gods and their "laws" would be radically different. You would sort of think if a true god existed, he would distribute his beliefs more homogenously. I mean, I keep hearing over and over how "god must reveal himself to you, we cant do it", but does it make sense to you he would predominantly "reveal himself" to those in the United States (especially the southeast) in the 20th and 21st century? Or is it a bit more likely these are just cultural superstitions?

 

[Eric Hilbert]

I disagree completely with the first part dealing with an innate knowledge.

I don't really care. I've tried to be both respectful and reasonable to you and, at this point, I'm no longer responding to converse with you, but merely to correct the silly things you say in case there might be any lurkers or weaker brothers and sisters in Christ viewing these threads.

If you had been raised in athens 2500 years ago you would have believed in a different set of gods, similarly if you lived in India in the year 300, in central america in the 1300s, in Egypt 3000 years ago, in canada in the 1600s, etc etc etc etc.

I agree. However, that doesn't make Christianity untrue.

As I tried to explain to you in another post, if I state that the Auburn Tigers are the 2010 BCS National Champions, the fact that I was raised near Auburn and attend their game does not make the statement any less true.

I mean, I keep hearing over and over how "god must reveal himself to you, we cant do it", but does it make sense to you he would predominantly "reveal himself" to those in the United States (especially the southeast) in the 20th and 21st century?

I haven't seen any evidence that He reveals Himself to anyone in any particular geographic area any more than another.

 

[Brenda Morgan]

It's worth stating that I don't take the flood narrative as literal history,

-CryptoLutheran

Are you aware of the fact that Jesus believed in the flood story?

37 For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be. Matthew 24:37-39

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Are you aware of the fact that Jesus believed in the flood story?

37 For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be. Matthew 24:37-39

I'm aware that Jesus was appropriating the flood story to make His own point.

-CryptoLutheran